It was my intention to not post again on TLF, however I couldn't help noticing (when not logged in!)
Sorcery posting the most completely ridiculous and misleading nonsense on this topic (apparently without challenge - why ever not?) So...
Sorcery wrote:odysseus2000 wrote:6. **Historical Climate Changes:**
- Past climate changes, including ice ages and warm periods, correlate more closely with changes in CO2 levels than with water vapor, which again suggests CO2 as a primary driver.
That's not my understanding,
https://cen.acs.org/articles/87/i51/Com ... 20increase.
"
Which Comes First, CO2 Or The Heat?"
Stephen K. Ritter
https://cen.acs.org/articles/87/i51/Comes-First-CO2-Heat.html#It might have helped if
Sorcery had bothered to read beyond the headline and first paragraph. If he had he would have read the following text:
Global-warming skeptics have developed a set of talking points to use in their arguments as they lobby against anthropogenic global warming. Many of these points fall into the category of "climate canards." These urban legends and sometimes outright misinformation add confusion to public understanding of climate science and have been refuted by the mainstream climate research community over the years. Yet they keep popping up.
One canard is that the temperature increase signaling the end of an ice age is observed to come before an increase in carbon dioxide concentration, rather than after the increase. This observation seems to be a contradiction in global-warming theory: Does an increase in CO2 concentration drive temperature rise, or is it the other way around?
The answer is both, although intuitively many people assume that it can only be one way or the other, notes geophysicist Michael E. Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center. Mann is part of a group of climate scientists who run the website "RealClimate," which provides news and commentary on global warming and climate change to counter the blogs operated by skeptics.
Speaks for itself, I think. Well worth reading the whole article, IMO.
Sorcery wrote:Also how would we know if an increase in water vapour initiated the warming and not C02 from an ice core?
Is this a joke?
OK. Let us suppose the water vapour in the atmosphere were increasing:
Why would that be?i.e. You now need to explain
why the water vapour in the atmosphere is increasing - as they aren't making water anymore and even if they were it would just be more liquid in the oceans. This, at least is
very easy to explain.
Q.
What causes an increase in water vapour in the atmosphere?A. An increase in temperature of the atmosphere. ('O Level' physics)
So,
Sorcery's 'Grand Explanation for Climate Change' amounts to: "
The Earth is getting warmer, which is caused by the Earth's temperature increasing."
Dude, that ain't no science. That's just Magic.
Now the fun begins - wherein we find out what is really going on here.

Sorcery wrote:But backtesting climate models over many years, shows they invariably run hot, compared with the actual. That is indicative that the models only have a loose correlation with the truth and perhaps there is some factors or feedbacks that they miss. Read the paper by Christie I linked to earlier or just google "models run hot" if you dare.

Add climate to the beginning of the search if you want less fun.
Also this
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7316305448 and
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7316305448 are interesting.
"
interesting"? Indeed!
Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model
Christopher Monckton, Willie W.-H. Soon, David R. Legates, William M. Briggs
Some 'well known' names in there. Actually, the paper itself is 'well known'. (Where 'well known' here means well known to those of us familiar with the topic and tropes of climate change denial and deniers)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton%2C_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley#Climate_changehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon#2003:_Climate_Research_controversyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Legates#Climate_changeI think we know where they are coming from...
There is no Wikipedia entry for Briggs. But there is on that very same paper:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon#January_2015_Monckton_et_al._paperJanuary 2015 Monckton et al. paperWith William M. Briggs, geography professor David Legates, and journalist and British politician Christopher Monckton, Soon co-authored a paper published by the Chinese Science Bulletin in 2015. Climatologist Gavin Schmidt described the paper as "complete trash". He said that the model used is not new, "they arbitrarily restrict its parameters and then declare all other models wrong."Sorcery wrote:There is also the (likely imho) influence of living things on the weather over longer timescales. A daisy-world system model developed by Andrew Watson and James Lovelock, where a world of black daisies and white daisies compete to stabilise the temperature, for example.
And what on Earth has that got to do with it? Especially as the the climate is
not currently stable wrt temperature. That is the whole point.
RealClimatehttps://www.realclimate.org/Climate science from climate scientists...Accept no substitute!